list-classifications

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden. It only states 'List tag classifications' without disclosing behavioral details like pagination, filtering, or the handling of deleted classifications. The schema implies pagination and deletion handling, but the description itself adds no transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (three words). While it is front-loaded, it is borderline under-specified. A few more words could substantially improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many siblings), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what classifications are, what the return format is, or how this tool relates to sibling tools. The schema carries most of the burden, but the contextual gap remains significant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% – all five parameters have descriptions. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List tag classifications' clearly states an action (list) and a resource (tag classifications). It is specific, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list-tags or get-classification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-tags (which lists tags) or get-classification (which retrieves a single classification).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.